Welcome Anonymous !

This forum is intended to give the members of the ShiningWorld community a place to meet and discuss Vedanta among themselves. We do not endorse any of the views or opinions expressed here--unless they are made by one of our endorsed teachers--so please take advice and / or teaching from another member of the forum at your own risk. If you feel you have a question that is not being adequately answered in this forum, please contact one of our endorsed teachers directly.

General Discussion

This is where to post topics that do not fall into any of the below chapters. please post there whenever possible. If you cannot decide where to post, post here and your topic may be moved to the appropriate chapter as deemed relevant.

1.) Rain that comes from clouds is wet.2.) Stones are not food for mammals.3.) The taste of sugar is called sweet.4.) Apples are not bananas.5.) The basic function of a car is to move from one place to another.6.) Vedanta is a teaching tool.

I'm interested in WHY and what for Vedanta needs to be seen as "objective" to work. Why wouldn't it work if it wasn't objective? Why does it need or even demand to be objective to work?

These are serious questions asked by me in order to understand the term OBJECTIVE better.

This is an advanced question. Valid. It also a very involved answer, but I believe I skimmed on sections of that answer in discussion with Bob on the CHAPTER 2 - KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE "study group" section thread thingy yesterday.

I believe Vedantis of old had the goodies on reality, and doing inquiriess based on their suggestions lead us to throwing out old erroneous distorted notions about who we are, and assimilating the correct ones, not because they said its true, but because we found our investigations to be true. We found out for ourselves that sugar is sweet, and once that is our knowledge then its very difficult for some random dude to come along and tell us what is best for us. If we relied on religion or the next enlightened guru to tell us what the score is then we are truly dependent on their ideas of who we are and what reality is.

This is why the Anishads are nicknamed the "end of knowledge"... the reason for this is because it is the knowledge that ends all searching and seeking for the meaning of life. All questions are not entirely answered in the panishads, but just enough pointers toward the truth are given to the serious contemplative student so that said student can become their own guru, their own remover of ignorance, darkness, whatever you want to call it, their own lamp of light (en-light-en-ment) to be able to sustain self support and independence from needing anything other than their own intelligence and common sense to sus this great conundrum out.

I'm not an expert scholst on the Geeta, nor would I even attempt to make a commentary, but as far as I'm aware, the Geeta is simple personifications of the self. Its a text packed with pure knowledge (700 verses in total) pulled from the middle of the great 100,000 verse Mahabharata. It is not a purely scientific text, but is more geared for normal folk who need an introduction to the self in the way of forms that one can relate to. It is both a dharma and moksha Shastra, combining both the relative and absolute aspects of reality to form one wisdom dense teaching. How much of it is entirely objective? I have no idea, but I would hasten at least a one dollar bet that it is 98% relevant for any person looking for freedom. In fact, the whole text alone is enough for any one person in any one lifetimes. plus more.

I hope this is the kind of quality answer you were looking for? I have a very small brain and there are a lot of topics in this Vedic party now that its beginning to feel a stretch on this small mind

1. Objective part: The teaching that you are Satchitananda (Limitless conscious existence). This cannot be refuted. This is totally objective.

2. Subjective part: The cosmology of Vedanta (Ishvara, maya, three bodies, 5 sheaths, gunas, vasanas etc..). All this could be considered subjective. There is no way to really verify it. We accept it because scripture tells us about it.

The related question I want to add (I hope that I am not derailing your thread) is this:

Do you see the objective truth of Vedanta (satchitananda) as an intellectual, cognitive, logical understanding OR do you see it as a sacred, spiritual and devotional? That is, do you consider satchitananda as GOD or DIVINE (or the LORD as the Gita describes it)?

I understand that the word GOD has a lot of baggage in the west. So, I guess, I want to ask, is there a sacred aspect to your understanding of Vedantic reality or it is simply a logical, objective, scientific truth?

Hi Anja, I would say it is apparently objective.For some people it might not work for various reasons so for them it's not necessarily objective.To say it is apparently objective releases us from any strong beliefs or argumentations!We can easily say "it is apparently objective to me but that doesn't necessarily mean it is objective to you!"

Plus, there are so many argumentations within different Hindu schools and academia that we really get into a lot of trouble by claiming one school to be objectively true and the others to be not, just my opinion

I'm interested in WHY and what for Vedanta needs to be seen as "objective" to work. Why wouldn't it work if it wasn't objective? Why does it need or even demand to be objective to work?

Vedanta is a valid means of knowledge and it`s teachings are not based on the knowledge of any one person. There is no one person that is totally objective, that is, completelly free from conditioning. As this is so, any knowledge a person has, is distorted to some degree by his/her conditioning.

If you and fifty other people have their opinion as to what the Baghavad gita is all about, how does one ascertain the truth about it if most, if not all of those views differ ?The subjective interpretation has to be removed and that only leaves one other option.The objective one ! There has to be a scientific, impartial...objective, method of getting at the truth of the matter. One that everybody can agree on. vedanta is that science of awareness.

Can you have subjective science that is meaningful ? No. You wouldn`t want to fly in a plane that does !

georgschiller wrote:Hi Anya, I would say it is apparently objective.For some people it might not work for Verious reasons so for them it's not necessarily objective.To say it is apparently objective releases us from any believe or argumentations! you can easily say it is apparently objective to me but that doesn't necessarily mean it is objective to you

Thanks George. That really nailed it for me. Since what is really objective is something that can not be denied by anybody who is even remotely sane.

Thanks Colonxy. I go for a walk now to contemplate on what you have replied.

Thanks Mira. Good questions! I gotta search for words while walking around the block to answer your questions.

And regarding the Bhagavad-Gita, here's my take on it, in a few sentenses:

The value and the meaning of the teaching is highly dependent on the students intellectual and emotional maturity while studying it, because for an immature student it can easily be used to intellectually spank others with its content in order get a point across that is purely selfish but is masquerading as being backed up by the divine most high. The Bhagavad-Gita is utterly beautifull but also extremely dangerous at the same time. Oppenheimer for example used it as some sort of a justification for the atomic bomb to be dropped.

Hi Calon,All good questions. Would you mind starting a new thread under GENERAL DISCUSSION and copying your post there and deleting this one? I would like to reply to it, but I don't want to derail Anja's fine thread.